🤣🤣🤣

Hell, that’s most retarded argument.

Imagine you live in a peaceful neighborhood called Nostr District. One day, the neighborhood manager—a resident, but not your direct neighbor—comes to you with a proposal:

"Hey, our neighborhood is perfectly safe. There’s no need for anyone to have weapons. I have the most powerful weapons here, and I make sure everything stays peaceful. If anything happens, I’ll take care of it. So, why don’t you hand over all your weapons? It’ll be better for everyone." (Budapest Memorandum, 1994 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum )

This sounds reasonable, and you don’t want any trouble. Plus, the manager assures you that he will ensure your safety. So, you agree and hand over all your weapons. Everything seems fine for a while.

Then, a new neighbor moves in right next to you. Unlike you, he refuses to give up his weapons because he is nearly as strong as the neighborhood manager. Over time, he starts acting aggressively. First, he claims that part of your backyard actually belongs to him. Then, he starts building on it. When you protest, he takes the entire backyard by force, and you have no way to stop him because you no longer have any weapons.

Desperate, you go to the neighborhood manager:

"Hey, you promised that if anything happened, you’d protect me. My new neighbor just took my entire backyard!"

But the manager shrugs:

"Yeah, that’s unfortunate… But you know what? At least the neighborhood is still peaceful! Maybe it’s best if you just let it go, so we don’t disturb the harmony here."

How would you look at peace in this scenario above?